vpm238 commited on
Commit
1733763
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 752640a

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +2 -74
README.md CHANGED
@@ -25,80 +25,8 @@ The checkpoint included in this repository is based on [CodeGen-Multi 2B](https:
25
 
26
  The general SQL queries are the SQL subset from [The Stack](https://huggingface.co/datasets/bigcode/the-stack), containing 1M training samples. The labeled text-to-SQL pairs come from more than 20 public sources across the web from standard datasets. We hold out Spider and GeoQuery datasets for use in evaluation.
27
 
28
- ## Benchmark Results
29
-
30
- We evaluate our models on two text-to-SQL benchmarks: Spider and GeoQuery.
31
-
32
- ### Spider Benchmark (Text-to-SQL Standard Evaluation)
33
-
34
- NSQL-llama-2-7B was evaluated on the Spider benchmark, the standard academic evaluation for Text-to-SQL systems.
35
-
36
- #### Overall Performance
37
-
38
- | Model | Size | Execution Accuracy | Matching Accuracy |
39
- |-------|------|-------------------|-------------------|
40
- | **NSQL-llama-2-7B** | 7B | 75.0% | **66.3%** |
41
- | GPT-4 | ~1.8T | 76.2% | 41.9% |
42
- | GPT-3.5 Chat | — | 72.8% | 44.2% |
43
- | Llama-2-7B (base) | 7B | 29.1% | 19.3% |
44
- | Llama-2-70B | 70B | 61.5% | 35.4% |
45
-
46
- #### Performance by Query Complexity
47
-
48
- | Query Type | NSQL-llama-2-7B | GPT-4 | NSQL Advantage |
49
- |------------|-----------------|-------|----------------|
50
- | **Join Queries** | **53.7%** | ~37.6% | **+43% relative** |
51
- | **Nested Queries** | **57.2%** | ~37.1% | **+54% relative** |
52
- | Simple Queries | 91.4% | Higher | GPT-4 advantage |
53
-
54
- #### Key Findings
55
-
56
- 1. **Complex Query Performance:** NSQL-llama-2-7B significantly outperforms GPT-4 on complex queries:
57
- - +43% improvement on Join queries
58
- - +54% improvement on Nested queries
59
-
60
- 2. **Matching Accuracy:** NSQL achieves 66.3% matching accuracy vs. GPT-4's 41.9% (+24.4 points), indicating more structurally correct SQL generation.
61
-
62
- 3. **Efficiency:** NSQL achieves near-parity with GPT-4 on overall execution (75.0% vs 76.2%) while being ~250× smaller.
63
-
64
- 4. **Local Deployment:** The 7B parameter size enables local deployment on commodity hardware, preserving data privacy.
65
-
66
- #### Why This Matters
67
-
68
- GPT-4 achieves marginally higher overall execution accuracy primarily through superior performance on simple single-table queries. However, enterprise SQL workloads typically involve:
69
- - Multiple table joins
70
- - Nested subqueries
71
- - Complex business logic
72
-
73
- On these complex query types, NSQL substantially outperforms GPT-4 while enabling privacy-preserving local deployment.
74
-
75
- ### GeoQuery Benchmark
76
-
77
- | Model | Size | Execution Accuracy | Matching Accuracy |
78
- |-------|------|-------------------|-------------------|
79
- | NSQL-llama-2-7B | 7B | 26.5% | 30.4% |
80
- | GPT-4 | ~1.8T | 55.1% | 39.1% |
81
-
82
- *Note: GeoQuery is a narrower benchmark; Spider is the primary industry standard for Text-to-SQL evaluation.*
83
-
84
- ### NSQL Model Family Comparison
85
-
86
- | Model | Size | Spider Exec | Spider Match |
87
- |-------|------|-------------|--------------|
88
- | NSQL-350M | 350M | 51.7% | 45.6% |
89
- | NSQL-2B | 2B | 59.3% | 53.2% |
90
- | NSQL-6B | 6B | 63.6% | 57.4% |
91
- | **NSQL-llama-2-7B** | **7B** | **75.0%** | **66.3%** |
92
-
93
- ---
94
-
95
- ## Evaluation Methodology
96
-
97
- - **Benchmark:** Spider (Yu et al., 2018)
98
- - **Metric - Execution Accuracy:** Percentage of queries returning correct results
99
- - **Metric - Matching Accuracy:** Percentage of queries structurally matching ground truth
100
- - **Query Type Breakdown:** Join, Nested, Simple categories per Spider schema
101
-
102
 
103
 
104
  ## Training Procedure
 
25
 
26
  The general SQL queries are the SQL subset from [The Stack](https://huggingface.co/datasets/bigcode/the-stack), containing 1M training samples. The labeled text-to-SQL pairs come from more than 20 public sources across the web from standard datasets. We hold out Spider and GeoQuery datasets for use in evaluation.
27
 
28
+ ## Evaluation Data
29
+ We evaluate our models on two text-to-SQL benchmarks : Spider and GeoQuery
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30
 
31
 
32
  ## Training Procedure